...As seen through my 18" two nights ago. I always enjoy this ghostly galaxy. Main attraction is the dark lane, which appears bigger and better defined at the edges than dust lanes in other galaxies.

Usually I do sketch both the stars and the object of interest. In the case of NGC 891, however I tried, I could not render that 3-D prespective of the galaxy floating behind the many field stars. So, I used an alternative method (to be honest, my astrobuddy thought of it!). I made a printout of the stars visible in my field using Megastar (changing star magnitudes until I could only include the stars visible in the field (about mag 15), and I did sketch NGC 891 on the printout. This has achieved the desired effect of the ghostly galaxy floating behind the sharp, bright foreground stars! I don't know if printing the background stars is "cheating", but in this case it certainly enhanced the drawing of the galaxy itself!

Attached Files

That is a very beautiful sketch. You've managed to get that ghostly feeling it has in the scope just right. Lovely! This is one of my favorite galaxies, even in my Zeiss Telemator and it just gets better with my bigger scopes.

...So, I used an alternative method (to be honest, my astrobuddy thought of it!). I made a printout of the stars visible in my field using Megastar (changing star magnitudes until I could only include the stars visible in the field (about mag 15), and I did sketch NGC 891 on the printout...

The rendering of the galaxy is nice, in that it conveys the distant ghostliness. Pre-printed stars from a database is not 'cheating' in my books. But the hard-edged, sizeable, flat disks are a decided detraction from realism. How about using them as a guide for placement and relative brightness, drawing in their stead a fine point with a fuzzy halo of suitable size?

Sure, it's not really cheating because the real subject is NGC 891. Posting an image of NGC 891 is cheating.

Glenn makes a good point (pun intended.) If you can make your stars more point like and using different shades of grey scale (or even color) to represent brightness. In this case, you can rely less on size to convey brightness.

I have used the trick with printed stars to great success. I use Cartes du Ciel. I print only stars a magnitude or so brighter than what I know I can observe (IE mag 13, when I know I can go to 14, etc), then I fill in additional stars I see with pencil.

Guys, thanks for the nice comments! As I said, I usually make my own stars with ink, but for some reason in this instance I could not achieve what my own eyes so in the eyepiece. My astrobuddy Nicknacknock first suggested I prepare a printout with stars before I even attempted the galaxy when I made a comment on the fact that there were lots and lots of stars. I now recall that I also read (I think in S&T several years ago) about the technique of first printing out the field with stars but I am not 100% sure.

In any case, I will experiment a bit. I think the difference in this case is that the galaxy appears "behind" the stars, and the combination of ink and pencil can not convey that feeling so well. On the other hand, I am not too enthusiastic about the exactly round, hard-edged stars.

I have posted other deep sky sketches in the deep sky observing section, with stars I produced, and in a little while I will post a drawing of the area of NGC 507 which was made the traditional way. Maybe then you can give me more feedback!

I have used the trick with printed stars to great success. I use Cartes du Ciel. I print only stars a magnitude or so brighter than what I know I can observe (IE mag 13, when I know I can go to 14, etc), then I fill in additional stars I see with pencil.

Clear skies!Thomas, Denmark

I'll again give credit to the OP for presenting the concept to me. But I have to say I love your idea, Thomas. I may try this...thank you for the tip!

Wonderful capture on the galaxy. One of the things with stars that I have found effective is to vary the intensity and the size. Brighter and larger stars are done in ink, fainter and smaller stars are done in a white pencil/pastel. That affect gives a depth perspective that your looking for I believe. I have to consciously think of doing that though but when I do, I really like the affect. Hope it helps. You can see it on my blog on the second post right now of NGC 1169 which has it to some affect. Not all the stars are round, I've gone back to posting my sketches as they are done in the field and not perfecting the circles and other items (just the raw sketch).

Nice rendering of this faint fuzzy. Maybe if you digitally blurred the starfield slightly it would take the hard edge off their appearance. I took the liberty of trying it--hope you don't mind. This is a 6% blur.

BTW, I went out last night hoping to take advantage of another clear night here but before long a heavy band of clouds came in from the SE. It hadn't quite reached Perseus and Andromeda yet so, recalling seeing this thread, I decided to take a look at NGC 891 before the transparency went in the tank.

In my C14 it appeared big and faint with just a hint of the dust lane (the clouds were rapidly reaching that part of the sky). I'll have to revisit it under better conditions but I wouldn't have looked last night except for your post. Thanks!